Sign in using your account

Should the U.S. halt the use of unmanned ‘killer’ drones'? Pro: They make war too easy

Sep 26, 2011

Editor's note: Every Monday we offer pro/con pieces from the
McClatchy-Tribune news service to give readers a broad view of
issues.

President Obama approved use of drones in Libya last spring. He
said they have "unique capabilities." A target is identified
through intelligence sources. The information is sent to the
command center. Someone sitting in front of a computer screen fires
a missile.

Drones can fly low. Gen. James Cartwright of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff explained that for Libya, their "ability to get down lower"
gave them better visibility, thereby getting a better bead on a
target. And of course with no pilot the only risk is loss of the
aircraft.

We are also now using drones in Yemen to target insurgents. In
Pakistan we have been using them even longer.

But there is a downside. Drones, say critics, make war too easy.
If a president doesn't have to be concerned about putting our youth
"in harm's way," it becomes much easier to go to war. Congress may
lose control.

Federal law requires eventual approval by Congress if the
president gets us into "hostilities." In Libya, when members of
Congress claimed Obama was skirting that law, he claimed we were
not in "hostilities" because we had no boots on the ground.

The information about the whereabouts of a "militant" may or may
not be accurate. Last year the U.N. official responsible for
tracking extrajudicial executions questioned the drone killings as
arbitrary executions. When a drone attack occurs, typically the
U.S. officials claim that those killed were "militants," while
local officials often claim that civilians were hit. Depending on
whose study one believes, one can find a wide range of ratios of
"militants" to bystanders killed.

Killing with drones means killing without a trial. But going
back to the 1960s, the United States has signed on to human rights
treaties that outlaw arbitrary killing. Drone killings skirt these
safeguards. No indictment. No judge or jury. No defense.

If some other country were sending pilotless aircraft over
Nebraska to shoot and kill people they regard as threats, the
Nebraska citizenry might not be too happy. Negative reaction to our
drone attacks has been strongest in Pakistan, where drones are
regarded as a terror weapon.

The resentment generated by drones carries serious risks. Last
year a man named Faisal Shahzad stood before a judge in federal
court in New York. Shahzad was charged with parking an
explosive-laden van near Times Square. Had the van exploded, as
Shahzad apparently planned, hundreds would have died. Judge Miriam
Cedarbaum asked Shahzad if he had any concern about the numbers of
innocents he might have killed.

"The drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq," Shahzad replied, "they
don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill everybody."
Shahzad said that he was "part of the answer to the U.S.
terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people." Our drones
may be on the cutting edge of military technology, but in
old-fashioned terms, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot.

John B. Quigley is a professor of law at The Ohio State
University. Write to him at Moritz College Law, 55 West 12th
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210.